Elon Musk-controlled satellite internet provider Starlink has told Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel it will not comply with a court order to block social media platform X in the country until its local accounts are unfrozen.

Anatel confirmed the information to Reuters on Monday after its head Carlos Baigorri told Globo TV it had received a note from Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in Brazil, and passed it onto Brazil’s top court.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes last week ordered all telecom providers in the country to shut down X, which is also owned by billionaire Musk, for lacking a legal representative in Brazil.

The move also led to the freezing of Starlink’s bank accounts in Brazil. Starlink is a unit of Musk-led rocket company SpaceX. The billionaire responded to the account block by calling Moraes a “dictator.”

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 months ago

      His life experiences? Having that much money and power really fucks with someone’s perceptions of the world.

    • Makhno@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why does the weird one think that he should have more power than a government?

      Because he quite literally does in a lot of cases. When is he ever punished?

    • kralk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m scared of the day Amazon realises they actually do have more power than the government.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because obviously the benevolent billionaire will do so much more good to the world than an evil government specifically elected by the will of the people. (/s)

    • Woht24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      He absolutely shouldn’t, but isn’t this just a dick swinging contest by both Brazil and Musk?

      I haven’t been following it but banning an entire website because they don’t have a ‘legal representative’ in your country sounds bizarre.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Twitter did have an office in Brazil (with legal representation) but after refusing to implement court ordered bans, the court fined them. Elon Musk threw a temper tantrum and shut down the Brazil office and eliminated his legal representation in Brazil.

        Note that Musk will implement bans when requested by authoritarians, just for some reason he draws the line when it’s a court order in a democratic country.

        Anyway the situation where Twitter doesn’t have legal representation is a situation Elon Musk created. Basically “I fired my lawyers so there’s nothing you can do against me now! Checkmate!” So Brazil says “fine, I guess we’re banning Twitter then…”

        So Space Karen thinks the the law doesn’t apply to him and it’s going to cost him a lot of money. Again.

      • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It is when the law says that for a company to operate in Brazil it has to have an appointed legal representative, and you close down your offices and refuse to re-appoint one when the judge demands you to.
        Musk entered a “No pants no service” restaurant, took his pants off, was told to put them back on and refused, and is now surprised he gets no service.

        • Woht24@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t know what you thought I said to begin your comment with ‘it is’, because if you’re agreeing it’s a dick swinging contest, then the rest of your comment seems strange.

          Anyway, fair enough - like I said, I have not been following it.

        • sczlbutt@lemmy.pubsub.fun
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Shut down the offices and evacuated employees when threatened with arrest. There’s a whole lot more to this story…

          • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s what Musk tells, the reality the legal representative alone could be arrested because Musk don’t want to pay the fines, the employees just lost their jobs because Musk don’t want to spend 0.00001% of his wealth.

          • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I mean, yes, when you are the legal representative for a company, that is what might happen when the company breaks the local laws and refuses to comply with court orders. That’s kinda the whole point.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think that’s a bit reductive.

        It’s fair enough to expect a large company to have a rep to attend court if they want to do business in your country.

        If they refuse then it becomes a “rule of law” situation - even if it’s a dumb law, you can’t have a multinational disregard the court’s instructions.

      • Lautaro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        It was banned because they refused to comply with anti-hate speech policies. According to musk, moderating his platform would be “political persecution” against those poor nazis.

    • ms.lane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m on side with Elon and Radio Caroline in this issue.

      He’s not broadcasting from inside Brazil’s borders, so the regulators can get stuffed.

      • gressen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        The ground antennas that enable the service totally broadcast from inside Brazil.

          • gressen@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I think the next logical step for Brazil is to revoke a license to operate in that spectrum, rendering all user terminals illegal.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        On 3 March 1968, the radio ships Mi Amigo and Caroline were boarded and seized before the day’s broadcasting began. They were towed to Amsterdam by a salvage company to secure unpaid bills for servicing by the Dutch tender company Wijsmuller Transport.[6] Caroline was broken up for scrap in 1972.[21]

        Looks like being in an international area doesn’t actually make you immune to consequences. If Brazil doesn’t want something broadcasting then the only way to keep them from shutting it down is to broadcast from inside a national area. If push comes to shove they can ban Starlink too, confiscate any receivers they can find, and even shoot down the satellites.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          There are 6350 Starlink satellites in orbit. Dude launches 60 of them at a time, has FCC permission for 12,000, and plans to launch another 30,000.

          Brazil has about 12. They can threaten to shoot down Starlink satellites, but they lack the capacity to actually do it.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s not how that works? It’s a missile. And they wouldn’t be trying to shoot down the entire system. Just enforce the ban in their own country. Odds are Starlink folds pretty quickly when they start losing assets.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              With what weapon system is Brazil going to pose a debilitating threat to a constellation of 6000 satellites?

              “Shoot them down” is well outside the scope of Brazil’s military capability.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Fighter jets and missiles. And before you go, oh no fighter jets don’t go that high! Their missiles can go that high with a flying start. Everything after that is just targeting. This is 40 year old technology and it’s available for sale.

                And again. There are not 6000 satellites servicing Brazil, nor would they need to hit nearly that many before Starlink caved.

                There is a serious lack of appreciation for the power and wealth countries command in this comment section. Brazil has an order of magnitude more wealth to use than Starlink.

                • Sleepkever@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I’m sorry. How do you expect a jet flying to get even close enough to a satellite to accelerate a missile to it?

                  Highest ever flow fixed wing “aircraft” is SpaceShipOne with rocket engines. Well above what a typical fighter jet might do: 112km height at 910m/s And a typical rocket will go what? Mach 2 or 3? So let’s say Mach 4 at 112 km, which is 1096 m/s

                  A typical Starlink orbit is either around 340km height or more typical 550km at either 7726 m/s or 7613 m/s at the different heights.

                  That gives a minimum distance traveled of at least 228km and a speed gap of 6630 m/s or 23868 km/h that the missile still needs to close.

                  There are probably ways that Brazil could try and destroy satellites if they want to. But launching missiles from (rocket powered) jets definitely isn’t one of them.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Fighter jets and missiles. And before you go, oh no fighter jets don’t go that high! Their missiles can go that high with a flying start

                  Please elaborate. There are a lot of fighter jets and a lot of missile systems. Please show me one capable of even guiding itself outside the atmosphere. Please show me one capable of causing significant impact to Starlink operations over Brazil.

                  The missiles typically carried on fighters generally have some kind of rocket motor that burns out in seconds, and utilize aerodynamic fins to maneuver itself to the target. While such missiles are theoretically capable of achieving the altitudes you’re talking about, they become unguided once they lose sufficient atmosphere to maneuver.

                  Very few missiles actually have an anti-satellite capability. Nothing in Brazil’s arsenal has ever been demonstrated to have such an capacity.

                  I’ll give you a hint: the total anti-satellite capability of the entire planet could shoot down maybe 50, and would take weeks to replenish. Starlink would replace its losses in one launch.

                  There are not 6000 satellites servicing Brazil,

                  These aren’t geosynchronous satellites. They don’t sit still in the sky. They don’t each serve a specific region on earth. They each complete an orbit every 90 minutes. Each and every satellite in the constellation passes over some part of Brazil multiple times a day, providing service to that area as it does. Yes, there are, indeed, 6000+ satellites servicing Brazil. Pick the right one, and you might be able to interrupt service in some part of Brazil for a few minutes a day, until the constellation adjusts itself to compensate.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    If there are 6,000 then Starlink is again flaunting the rule of law. Brazil gave them a permit for a max of around 4,000.

                    And you’re not getting the disparity in resources here. If Starlink can launch every day then Brazil can launch a similar size vehicle 10 times a day. Furthermore AS missiles are available on the market. It doesn’t matter if they don’t have one right now.

                    In all likelihood they’ll go a different route but I don’t get why you think Starlink can manufacture and replace delicate instruments in orbit faster than a medium sized country can launch explosives to yeet them. Starlink’s revenue is around 2 to 6 billion a year. Brazil has 2 trillion in GDP to work with. Those number are different, because the way a country finances something and the way a corporation finances something are completely different. This isn’t a fair fight.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The satellites may be carrying starshields on them which are national security modules with the DoD. Shooting down the wrong satellite would be attacking US national defense infrastructure.

          Nevermind starshields are whole DoD satellites.

          I think when I read this, I replaced starshield with starlink

          the ability to put a wide variety of instruments on the Starshield satellite bus

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The US is not going to go to war over SpaceX’s private Internet satellites.

            • ms.lane@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              Lets assume they’re not carrying DOD data (they are), do you really think the US will sit back and let some third world-

              1. Destroy US Commercial property

              2. Start a Kessler Storm

              Without consequence? US destroyed Iran’s navy over a single shipping vessel…

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                The DoD is not depending on starlink in South America. And dropping a few satellites is not going to create a Kessler effect. And Operation Praying Mantis was because they attacked a US Navy Frigate.

                Are you done being dramatic?